Talk:Bikini waxing

Objection to the picture

The picture that is repeatedly placed upon this article is not identified as a picture of a brazilian wax or of any kind of waxing. Do we know that the picture was of a waxing? Could it be shaving? Could it be a hormonal or pharmacological issue that led to a lack of hair? Unknown. Does the lack of hair extend throughout the area described by the article? The picture does not show. Does the picture show how it is done? No it does not. It is original research to declare that this picture is of brazilian waxing.

It may be of prurient interest, but the picture is also unnecessary to the article. It does not contribute any helpful or useful information. It is really of no encyclopedic value.

Since it is both Original Research and Unnecessary, it should not be included. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. 5Q5 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted an image that was neither educational or descriptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.33.15 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree!!! Let's delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.221.66 (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have already deleted it about half a dozen times. But, it keeps resurfacing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how many times you delete, the pornographer wannabes that load these subjects with the pictures that serve no purpose other than the prurient. Those in the pornographer class are one of the biggest obstacle to Wikipedia ever becoming a REAL encyclopedia. Until adults stand up for decency this site will never serve a better purpose than looking up celebrities or brushing up for Trivial Pursuit. Steve (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You might note, you are replying to a message posted over 2 years ago. The later ones are at the bottom of the page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There was no warning for these pictures at all. None. How does wiki even know these "women" are legal age or that these pictures were taken with their consent? And I have to disagree. These are not "tasteful" photos--since when is a spread-leg layout tasteful? Perhaps to a person used to reading porn.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.155.59 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 

Let's talk about this picture....

Pros: It's a relatively tasteful nude photograph

Cons: It doesn't obviously, unquestionably show the results of a "Brazilian" wax. A similar state could have been achieved through shaving, or merely a frontal wax. We would need a far more graphic depiction to see the full results of the article's subject.

IMO, the most encyclopedic option would be to see a somewhat clinical depiction of a Brazilian waxing being administered, but I think the image in question is a reasonable compromise, in the absence of such a picture. Whether you or others find it of "prurient interest" is neither here nor there. Consider the subject of this article for a moment and ask yourself what sort of picture were you expecting to see?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the description of the image says it not an image of waxing, Brazilian or otherwise. Is it really necessary to put an image of a bald "pussy" in the article, especially if it fails to depict the topic, and also represents WP:OR to an extent? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The description[1] does claim the image shows a "Brazilian waxing." There are concerns here--but the image file description is not one of them.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I support bringing back those great pictures. Those pictures were a very good demonstration of brazilian waxing. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(reduced indent) Don't worry. Any porn site would most obligingly provide pictures of loads of bald pussies. Those "great pictures" are not really necessary, and are not even wholly representative of a Brazilian (if the article is to be believed). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be necessary to prove that a particular image was from brazilian waxing in order to include it. As long as it looks like brazilian waxing, there should be no objection to including the image to this article. One thing that's now missing after the images have now been removed is that the previous image added value to the article in that showed that brazilian waxing removed hair from the bung as well. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says - It can be thought of as a more extreme form of bikini waxing. The majority of types of Brazilian waxing leave a small line of pubic hair above the vulva, commonly known as the "G-Wax." If that is to believed, the images only portray an "extreme form" which may not be the right approach in depicting something. Like, would you prefer to portray a Siamese twin when depicting a human being? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The image was just put back in, I undid it. -Zeus- 03:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell is this picture back? I was searching Wikipedia for "Brazilian", and I didn't even know what "waxing" was about. And then all of a sudden there's a "bald pussy" on my screen - on a Wikipedia page, and for no reason at all! I don't care about nudity, but I guess I would care if I had children, and anyway people who may see my computer screen do care about it. Basically, (almost) everyone here seems to agree that the picture shouldn't be there, but it keeps coming back (note the anonymous edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bikini_waxing&diff=240264800&oldid=238845511). I think it's just unacceptable and, under these circumstances, I'd call it plain vandalism. (BTW: just removed it.) Eumedemito (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I just removed it again. I don't have a problem with some kind of picture illustrating the results, but it seems to me that the latest picture that keeps coming back is a bit too prurient. Surely there are many other images that would illustrate the subject without being pornographic? The former "pool" picture was much more appropriate. If you are one of the people who keep bringing it back, at least be up-front and discuss it here on the discussion pages instead of just getting your jollies with this picture. 98.118.253.194 (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:CENSOR and WP:NOIMAGE. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the people that are complaining about expected when they went to an article about bikini waxing. Wikipedia is not censored. If these were fair-use images, I'd agree with their removal, however these are free images that are exactly what the article describes. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 13:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what

I think all the images on this page should be removed. Naked pictures on a waxing page are gratuitous. There are not pictures of shooting victims on the murder page now is there. Learn some taste. People ( including teens ) should be able to reference this page without embarrassment. I can see a curious teen getting caught by their parents right now. Want to prove me wrong? That these pictures are here for information and art? Replace all these pictures with fat women. You won't do it. 99.69.59.64 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC

Equating nudity to murder might not reflect a worldview. Certainly it does not reflect a Brazilian view. Aldo L (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictures showing human female pubic nudity

Can we PLEASE permanently remove all the pictures that depict pubic nudity? This is a public encyclopedia which people of all ages and backgrounds can access. A diagram will do the topic justice without offending those who do not wish to view it in graphic detail. People may disagree but this is a public site and respect should be shown to all viewers. Those who wish to gaze at hairless pubic areas can seek the enjoyment from pornography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creamriceking (talk • contribs) 17:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you, in that I feel "innocuous" pages should not contain nudity. But this is a page about how you shave your crotch, so I don't think it's a stretch to expect there to be pictures of it. This is an encyclopaedia, you should expect relevant images on a page. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There also is an option of not viewing an image. It is there to help people who are offended by some picture or other. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If they used drawings instead, then wouldn't the drawings be offensive to some as well?BuboTitan (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? What is the purpose of the pictures? Aren't some sketchy drawings, for instance, NOT enough to illustrate the topic? I highly doubt even a single drawing at all is necessary, but it's surely unnecessary to show a few pics where labia minora (and thighs... They're not even properly focused pictures) are totally visible. The pictures are missing the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Femmeseule (talk • contribs) 11:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are not missing the point. Lot of work has gone down in choosing the right images with a lot of editors involved. But, apparently you are missing the point. Wikipedia isn't censored, and if any user has a problem with any image he or she can turn the image off at his or her end. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding A diagram will do the topic justice without offending those who do not wish to view it in graphic detail.

Well, if you make a diagram, we might consider replacing the image with the diagram. But, since I can't find any diagrams of this subject, I see no reason even to discuss removing the image. --78.3.73.184 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I just introduced some short explanations for the reason of showing each photograph in their corresponding captions. The photographs may look "more encyclopedic" now. Aldo L (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable! Just an excuse to post explicit photos of female genitalia under the pretense of "science" and non-censorship. This "resource" is accessed by children. Have some decency. Compare these sexualized & explicit photos with the many photos posted on the entry for "Nudity." These explicit photos have no place in an all-ages accessible "encyclopedia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.176.144 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If the standard is that children might view it, then there shouldn't be any encyclopedic entries on anything related to sex. I think scant few children stumble upon the entry for "bikini waxing" by accident anyway. But even if they do, there's no sexual activity depicted on the page. Just photos of nude people, no different than you will find in many medical textbooks.BuboTitan (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removal. Wikipedia should be useful to a wider audience, including those who don't want to see crotch shots. Someone mentioned that there is so picture on the murder page, and equally no pictures are required here. Wikipedia should not be NSFW. 68.183.194.247 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As stated before Wikipedia is not censored. There are many, many more photos on Wikipedia that are NSFW and far more explicit than these mild shots. If you don't want to see the photos then you have the option of turning them off. This is just a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If someone doesn't want to see crotch shots, they should not come to a page about shaving the crotch. In addition, murder is not usually done for the aesthetic effects, while bikini waxing is done almost entirely for that reason, seeing as it is a cosmetic procedure. It makes sense to show how a cosmetic procedure will affect how the recipient looks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.213.79 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Pictures are important

Thanks Wikipedia for those pix. I know now the difference between a french 'landing strip' and a Brazilian "Sphynx" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.160.233 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Replacement with diagram

In a recent edit I replaced the current pictures of various "styles" with a much clearer diagram (File:Pubic hair styles.svg), which was then reverted (big shock there) without comment. Would anybody care to give a valid reason for why a single clear and concise diagram is not better? And don't spout Not Censored, thats not a free pass to include every picture, you like where a diagram can be more suitable--Jac16888^Talk 13:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with replacing a picture with a diagram - all the sex positions articles have done that. Not sure if that's the best drawing, personally I prefer some of the single drawings at commons:Category:Pubic hair style diagrams.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This issue comes up time and time again, and the consensus is always to retain the current images. WP:CENSOR isn't cited to include the images, it is invoked to point out the invalidity of "suitability" or "appropriateness" as rationales for removing the images. If there is a clear consensus for replacing the images then they can be replaced, but I don't really see what clear advantage hand drawn diagrams have over photographic images in illustrating the appearance of a particular style. Betty Logan (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Its a good thing I didn't remove the images for being inappropriate then isn't it. Yes I can see that there is always a consensus to have the images as opposed to no images at all, however this is a totally different edit. The fact of the matter is that a diagram illustrate the styles much more clearly than pictures do, as Ron pointed out there are alternatives to the one I added, there is a precedent for using diagrams as shown on many sex related articles, it reduces the number of people you get coming here to bitch "I saw a naked lady and I'm not happy", and it overall looks better and more encyclopedic--Jac16888^Talk 04:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all I dispute that an article on bikini waxing is a "sex article", and since I don't know what the reasoning for using diagrams on the sex articles is, I am not sure it is applicable. When illustrating sex positions what you are doing is describing sexual technique; the illustration has an instructional aspect so diagrams may be better suited in this capacity i.e. you are illustrating a process rather than merely showing what something looks like. The need for illustrating hairstyles has no instructional element—the sole purpose is to show the appearance, and a photograph shows what something looks like far better than a diagram ever will. Wikipedia:Choosing appropriate illustrations also states that photographs are usually the best option if the primary purpose of the image is to show the appearance of something. The approach taken on this article is in keeping with other hairstyle articles which are illustrated with photographs rather than diagrams. The fact that you are trying to replace the images on the bikini waxing article and not the facial hair or hairstyle articles does make me question if yet again this is another attempt at backdoor censorship. This article belongs to the family of articles about hair (as demonstrated by the inclusion of the hair template), not sex, so if we are going to have consensus set through precedent on other articles then it should come from the hair articles. I am not convinced we should be drawing our rationale from the sex articles rather than the hair articles, and I not convinced that diagrams are superior to photographs for illustrating appearance. Betty Logan (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It is entirely applicable since the images in question are of naked women, and you while the two are related, you cannot apply the same rules to this article that you do to Mullet (haircut). What a surprise you're accusing me of censorship, do you not think if i wanted to censor I would be for removing the other image as well? Your accusation is baseless, and the fact that the reasons I have given for why the diagrams are better have no mention of censoring its also irrelevant--Jac16888^Talk 14:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)--Jac16888^Talk 14:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)--Jac16888^Talk 14:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You are applying a censorship argument though if the fact that the images feature naked women is a factor in the considerations. The essence of WP:CENSOR is that we shouldn't apply criteria any differently on the basis that they show pubic hair and vaginas rather than heads and mullets. If the argument for replacing photographs with diagrams on this article stands, then it probably applies to the other articles documenting hairstyles. It seems to me if your argument has any merit then we should debate it in the wider context of all the hairstyle articles. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The argument of this being "porno" is debatable. I guess that few people get excited when seeing a woman trimming her excess body hair. This is not sexual in nature, just as a naturist beach is not sexual in nature. In the United States the photographs might be offensive, but I guess they are less so in Europe or in Brazil. Remember worldview, or at least the view from countries where this practice is popular. By the way, it is also right to show labia as they are referred to in the main text. Aldo L (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you can argue that crude drawings is a "clearer" depiction than a photograph. Your claim that the content contains naked women should be a factor in whether pictures or diagrams should be used makes it clear that your primary motivation for the change is to remove pictures of naked women. NebraskaDontAsk (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

POV Flag

A quick glance at this section is terribly biased. There are multiple issues with virtually every sentence and the entire section is about as anti-brazilian as possible. It highlights non-existent medical issues, quotes anti-waxing celebs, and in general demonstrates that no one every should do this procedure under any circumstance. Despite this, this style of waxing is one of the most popular styles of waxing in the United States. Either the section needs removed, or it needs balanced. 98.22.228.255 (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rationale behind Bikini waxing

The usually quite painful act of body waxing is probably most accurately to do with ancient sexual habits, in which the "ideal" female - bride or otherwise, was barely pubescent. It unquestionably works on males on a "basic" level as any female can confirm who has "bikini-waxed" and then engaged with the same partner ......

It DOES make a female "appear" much younger.

(inserted quotation)

Fri Mar 25 2011 14:20:16 GMT+1000 Bikini waxing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In Middle Eastern societies, removal of the female body hair has been considered proper hygiene, necessitated by local customs, for many centuries.[4] In Islam, this is known as an act of Fitrah. Evidence of pubic hair removal in ancient India dates back to 4000 to 3000 BC.[5]

The removal of pubic hair by Western women became more common when bathing suits became abbreviated, starting in 1945.[1] Changes in lingerie styles have also encouraged the removal of pubic hair throughout the years.[2](p139)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_waxing#The_Landing_Strip

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.238.11 (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's also inaccurate to say that in ancient times the ideal woman was barely pubescent. The ideal bride yes, but the motive there was to reduce the oppertunity for sex and therefore children out of wedlock - allowing the husband to feel confident that any children he raised were his own. Historically whether you found your partner attractive was irrelevant to marriage, which was more about establishing a clear succession or inheritance. It is also worth noting that until relatively recently life expectancy was much, much shorter than it is today. If you weren't likely to live much past 30 you couldn't afford to wait long to begin having and raising children. So once again it was a practical consideration rather than anything to do with what men might find attractive.

Finally on a personal note I can tell you that this female has found male reactions to a full shave (never waxed but the result looks the same) range from approval to disgust and even anger but the one thing I have never heard is that it makes me look younger. Danikat (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Female pubic hair cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Female pubic hair cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)